THE 592 GUARDIAN

Accountability. Without Apology.

EDITORIAL  |  JUNE 2026

---

FOOL’S GOLD AT THE LENDING WINDOW

---

The PPP’s ‘Development Bank’ Is Not a Lifeline for Small Business — It Is a Slush Fund with a Press Release

Floyd Haynes, Chairman of Newhaven Merchant Bank, concluded his recent op-ed on the proposed SME Development Bank with a quiet prayer dressed up as policy analysis: “If we get this right…”

If.

That single syllable, tucked into the closing paragraph of an otherwise enthusiastic endorsement, contains more honesty than anything else in the piece. Because the question Haynes cannot bring himself to answer — and the question every Guyanese citizen should be demanding an answer to — is this: When, precisely, have we ever gotten this right?

Not once. Not in any institution of consequence built by this administration or its predecessors under this governing arrangement. Not in the road contracts that ballooned and stalled. Not in the housing schemes that became patronage lotteries. Not in the public procurement processes that enriched the well-connected while the public waited. Not in the regional administrations where accountability travels in one direction — upward, to party headquarters — and never back to the people.

The record is not ambiguous. It is not contested. It is carved into the landscape of every region in this country in the form of unfinished projects, overpriced contracts, and quietly shelved reports. And yet, here we are again — presented with a US$200 million institution and asked to believe that this time will be different.

“If we get this right” — Mr. Haynes, that conditional is not a caveat. It is a confession.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE FAMILIAR

Strip away the language of inclusion — the seamstress in Sophia, the agro-processor in Berbice, the wheelchair-using developer in Linden, all of them deployed as rhetorical furniture to make a political instrument sound like social policy — and what you have is a lending institution that will be capitalised with public money, governed under political oversight, and staffed, at the decision-making level, by individuals whose primary qualification will not be credit analysis or development economics.

It will be loyalty.

That is not cynicism. That is the operational pattern of every quasi-public institution this government has touched. The question of who makes the final lending decisions is not addressed anywhere in the Haynes piece, nor in any of the administration’s announcements. There is talk of governance frameworks, transparency pillars, and independent credit assessment. There is no talk of who appoints the board. There is no talk of what protections exist against ministerial interference in individual loan decisions. There is no talk of what happens when a party financier’s cousin applies for GY$3 million to start a business he has no intention of running.

These omissions are not oversights. They are the design.

ZERO INTEREST, ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Haynes is correct that commercial lending rates of 10 to 14 per cent are prohibitive for micro-enterprises. He is correct that collateral requirements exclude women, young people, and persons with disabilities at disproportionate rates. These are real structural failures of the Guyanese financial system, and they deserve a real structural response.

But a zero-interest loan pool administered by a politically appointed institution, without enforceable arm’s-length governance, is not a structural response. It is a structural opportunity — for the party, not the public.

Zero interest and reduced collateral are not just pro-small-business features. They are also the precise combination of conditions that make a lending institution maximally attractive as a vehicle for politically directed disbursement. The lower the barrier to lending, the wider the discretion available to those controlling the tap. The less collateral required, the less documentation needed to justify a decision. The more that decisions can be framed as serving the bank’s social mandate, the harder it becomes to challenge any individual disbursement.

This is the cobra effect Mr. Haynes references — but he applies it narrowly, to borrowers who might default. He does not apply it to the institution itself, which faces every incentive to lend politically and no enforceable constraint to prevent it.

The lower the barrier to lending, the wider the discretion available to those controlling the tap.

APPEASEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

Let us be direct about what this bank is in the context of Guyanese political economy.

The PPP has, over the course of this oil boom, constructed a vast machinery of resource distribution. Contracts, jobs, housing allocations, scholarships, cash grants — each instrument serves a dual function: a stated public purpose and an unstated political one. The stated purpose is what gets written into op-eds and ministerial speeches. The unstated purpose is what keeps the base mobilized, keeps the loyalists rewarded, and keeps the opposition constituencies just comfortable enough not to organize.

A development bank with GY$3 million zero-interest loans is not a departure from this machinery. It is the most sophisticated addition to it yet. It is targeted at demographics — youth, women, small business owners — whose support is politically valuable and whose economic precarity makes them susceptible to cultivation. It offers enough real benefit to the base that the political dividend is genuine, while the institutional structure ensures that the discretionary benefits flow to those who matter.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is how patronage democracies function. They do not distribute nothing — they distribute selectively, visibly, and with just enough reach to sustain the narrative that the party governs for everyone. The seamstress in Sophia gets her loan. The party agent gets ten.

THE UNTOUCHABLE CLASS

There is a deeper structural point that the Haynes analysis — earnest though it may be — entirely misses. The establishment of this bank is not simply a policy decision. It is another layer of the oligarchic architecture that this administration has been building, methodically and with considerable sophistication, since it returned to power.

That architecture operates on a simple principle: enough money and enough loyalists, deployed across enough institutions, creates a class that is untouchable regardless of electoral outcomes. When the contracts are awarded to your allies, the boards are populated by your supporters, the lending decisions are made by your appointees, and the beneficiary lists contain enough ordinary names to create plausible deniability — you are not merely governing. You are constructing a permanent infrastructure of advantage that survives government.

In or out of power, the class that controls these flows is the untouchable class. The development bank, far from being a challenge to that structure, is one of its most elegant expressions. It takes the credibility of financial inclusion — a cause with genuine moral weight — and uses it to launder the distribution of resources to the network.

Mr. Haynes calls for vigilance. We agree. But vigilance directed at the borrowers — will they default, will they use the money wisely — is precisely the misdirection the architects of this institution are counting on. The vigilance that matters is directed at the lenders: Who appointed them? Who do they answer to? When a politically connected applicant’s file moves to the top of the queue, who pushes back, and at what personal cost?

WHAT DUE DILIGENCE ACTUALLY REQUIRES

The 592 Guardian does not oppose access to credit for small Guyanese businesses. We have consistently argued that the formal financial sector’s exclusion of women, youth, and rural entrepreneurs is one of the most consequential structural failures in this economy. The principle behind this bank is not wrong. The problem is that principles do not govern institutions — people do, and the people who will govern this institution have not been named, have not been subjected to any public vetting, and have not been required to operate under any governance framework that exists independently of the executive branch.

Before a single loan is disbursed, the public is owed answers to the following:

Who appoints the board, and can the President or Cabinet remove a board member without parliamentary approval? What is the explicit prohibition on current or former party officers serving in decision-making roles? What is the independent complaints and appeals mechanism for rejected applicants who believe political criteria influenced their outcome? What are the quarterly public reporting obligations, and who has the legal standing to enforce them? Who conducts the external audit, and does that auditor report to Parliament rather than the Ministry?

None of these questions are addressed in the government’s announcements. None are addressed in the Haynes piece. Their absence is not incidental.

GETTING IT RIGHT HAS NEVER BEEN THE PLAN

Mr. Haynes writes that “if we get this right, a decade from now we will look back on the establishment of this bank as the moment Guyana decided that prosperity would be built from the bottom up.”

It is a stirring vision. It also assumes that getting it right is the objective.

The record of this administration — on public procurement, on oil revenue governance, on the management of state enterprises, on the awarding of infrastructure contracts, on the population of every board and commission of consequence — suggests that getting it right, in the sense Mr. Haynes means, has never been the primary objective. The primary objective has been getting it done in a way that consolidates power, rewards loyalty, and constructs durable institutional advantage for the ruling class.

A development bank, given that objective, is not a vehicle for financial inclusion. It is a vehicle for financial control. The inclusion is the cover. The control is the point.

The seamstress in Sophia gets her loan. The party agent gets ten.

— The Editors

The 592 Guardian | Georgetown, Guyana

592 GUARDIAN♦ SPECIAL FEATURE

The Mesmerizing Flamboyancy of Suman Kalyanpur

OPINION 

BY: JAI LALL

The golden era of Indian artistes is lingering on the threshold of a fading twilight. Engulfed in the long shadow of refined Indian artistry comprising voices, vocals and vintage, there remain only but a few darlings who have gracefully traversed the iconic age of candor courtesy, charismatic challenges and couth culture. An entertaining memory lane from the 1930’s, endowed with the talented personalities featuring songs and music for the black and white movies in particular, has set sail after completing their musical sojourn on this earthly abode.

A name synonymous with the auspices of a good disposition, Suman Kalyanpur, a legendary playback singer from the filmy world of Bollywood, was born as Suman Hemmady on 28th January,1937 in Kolkata but brought to Dhaka (now Bangladesh), at the age of 3. She was bred in Bombay from 1943. This flower, interested in painting and music, burgeoned into a student initially learning classical music from Pandit Keshav Rao Bhole of Pune’s Prabhat Films, a close family friend. She later had other Gurus.

The versatile maestro who sang in over ten languages including Hindi, got her first chance to sing publicly for the All-India Radio in 1952. Her opportunity to break into the film industry was in 1953 in the Marathi Film, “Shukrachi Chandni.” Singing a lullaby in 1954, “Koi Pukaree Dheere Se Tujhe” from the movie “Mangu,” Suman Kalyanpur made her debut in the Hindi film world.

She then sang “Mohabbat Kar Lo Ji Bhar Lo Aji Kisne Rokha Hai” with Mohammed Rafi and Geeta Dutt for the film Aar Paar.

This veteran singer who became popular in particular in the 1960’s and 1970’s, spanned a recording three-decade famous career, perhaps was thankful to Talat Mahmood who was impressed with her singing after listening to her in a musical concert. Agreeing to do a duet with her, the film industry sat up and took notice of her and from then on, she blossomed into that velveteen voice with over 3,000 recordings to her credit.

Suman Ji sang duets with all the big-time playback singers and joined the elite group of India’s maestros with distinction including the romantic Mohammed Rafi, the sentimental Mukesh, the rollicking Kishore Kumar, the classical Manna Dey, the emotional Talat Mahmood and the sensational Hemant Kumar. This touching description qualifies the performing arts of Suman Ji’s capabilities.

Despite her unique gift, she was overshadowed with her touch, tone and tenderness similar to Lata Mangeshkar and often mistaken for this close semblance. This provided a limited negativity but an advantage when Lata’s “feud” and reluctance to sing with Rafi ji for a while, opened a flood —gate of performances because of her nuanced voice with Lata ji.

With the advent of award-winning stars from the big screen, Suman Kalyanpur stamped her authority as one of India’s favorite past time singers in Baat Ek Raat, Dil Ek Mandir, Dil Hi to Hai,Sanjh Aur Savera, Noor Jehan, Saathi, Pakeeza etc. Suman ji performed a rare duet with Lata ji with the classical song “Kabhi Aaj Kabhi Kal” from the 1959 movie “Chand.” In quite an entertaining scene, Balraj Sahni and Meena Kumarie witnessed the explosive, expressive and exclusive dancing ordeal by Helen and Sheila Waz.

Her visit to Guyana would shed tears in remembering her fantastic, feathery and famous finesse while performing the crazed twister Aajkal Tere Mere Pyaar Ke Charche, the moving Na Na Karte Pyaar, the electrifying Tumse Ho Hasinha, the thrilling Rahen Na Rahen Hum, the romantic Tumne Pukara Aur Hum Chale Aye, the emotional Dil Ne Phir Yaad Kiyya, the melodious Mera Pyar Bhi Tu Hai, the classical Manamohan Man Mein Ho Tumhi etc. This never forgotten voice of exquisite exuberance and soft somberness was the recipient of numerous prestigious awards including; the three times Sur Sringar Samsad for the best classical song in Hindi movie; the Lata Mangeshkar Award by the Government of Maharashtra (2009); Ga Di Ma Award by Ga Di Ma Pratishthan; Mirchi Music Lifetime Achievement Award (2022); Padma Bhushan by the Government of India on 26th January 2023 and the Maharashtra Bhushan Ma Ta Sanman Puraskar by Maharashtra Times (2024).

The voice of the world fell quiet when Suman Kalyanpur bade us farewell on 31st May 2026 at her residence in Lokhandwala at the beautiful age of 89. She expired from age related issues while listening to her own recordings. Despite her often-mistaken voice for Lata ji, Suman Ji made her indelible articulation in her own resonating manner, silently but distinctly distinguishable in her own romantic, royal and resonating right.

---

Thank you Suman Kalyanpur ji for providing music lovers with your refreshing and rich recordings which will remain remnants of the haunting past of Indian melodious appeasement in a delicate era, dedicated and devoted to the cultural preservation of refined idolized musical artistry.

---

 

 

 THE 592 GUARDIAN. EDITORIAL     

 A Visionary for Whom? Ali’s New Cover and the Berbice Gift That Cost Guyana Nothing but Sovereignty

The 592 Guardian Opinion 

 

President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali has been crowned “visionary” again. This time by a Dominican Republic energy magazine that placed him on its cover, calling Guyana

“One of the most influential investment and energy destinations in Latin America and the Caribbean”.

The compliment is smooth. The timing is convenient. The deal behind it demands scrutiny.

What earned President Ali this special recognition isn’t just the Stabroek Block’s offshore success, where ExxonMobil has found billions of barrels. It is something far more suspicious: the onshore Berbice Block, where three wells were drilled in 2005 and all came up dry, yet now serves as the centerpiece of a partnership that gives the Dominican Republic —10% of the stake without requiring a single dollar of investment

Let us congratulate President Ali, as the magazine does. For his elevation to cover status. For his warm personal relationship with Dominican President Abinader. For his “vision” in allowing a foreign state to ride on the backs of Guyanese taxpayers and feast at their table—all for bringing himself to the signing ceremony.

 The Deal That Makes “Visionary” Sound Like Theft

The terms are clear: the Dominican Petroleum Refinery (Refidomsa) receives 10% of the Berbice Block without upfront capital, without a signing bonus, and without bearing exploration risk.  Guyana, meanwhile, assumes 100% of the technical risk, the financial cost, and the environmental liability.

Onshore exploration carries its own risks. No production is guaranteed

Three wells drilled on Berbice in 2005 were dry holes. Yet the Dominican Republic gets a free option on a potential resource while Guyanese taxpayers shoulder the cost of the gamble.

If this were a private business deal, it would be called predatory. When a government does it, we call it “regional cooperation.”

 Visionary for the DR, not for Guyana

The Dominican Republic is import-dependent for energy. It needs oil. It needs gas. It needs security. This deal serves those interests, not Guyana’s development agenda.

Meanwhile, Guyana receives:

– No upfront payment

– No guaranteed discovery

– No technology transfer

– No jobs for local workers

– No infrastructure built for Guyanese communities

What Guyana gives:

– A 10% slice of future production (if any)

– Majority stake (>51%) for the DR in secondary projects

– Sovereignty over a resource block that could be worth billions

– The political capital of a “visionary” partnership

The magazine calls this visionary. The question is: visionary for whom?

 The Taxpayer’s Dime, the Foreigner’s Feast

The irony is grotesque. Guyanese taxpayers are paying for schools that remain unfinished, roads that wash out, hospitals that lack equipment, and a public sector that cannot compete with oil-company salaries.

Yet the government is willing to give away 10% of a potential oil block to a foreign state that brought nothing but a pen to the table.

This is not a partnership. This is hostility to the national interest disguised as diplomacy.

The president enjoys warm access to the DR’s top brass. That is politically useful. But warm diplomacy is not the same as equal benefit. When a foreign magazine celebrates the relationship, it is celebrating access, not public welfare.

 A Stinging Truth

Let us be clear: President Ali is not a visionary for giving away Guyana’s resources. He is a negotiator who signed a deal that serves foreign interests more than domestic needs.

The magazine’s cover is not a tribute to Guyana’s rise. It is an advertisement for the Dominican Republic’s success in securing a free stake in Guyana’s future.

The real visionary would be the one who says: “No. We will not give away our resources for free. We will not let foreign states ride on our taxpayers’ backs. We will negotiate fair terms that serve Guyanese people first.”

That visionary is not President Ali.

 The Bottom Line

President Ali deserves credit for offshore success. But the Berbice deal is a different story. It is a gift that costs Guyana nothing but sovereignty, and it is a gift that costs the Dominican Republic nothing but a signature.

The magazine calls it visionary. We call it what it is: a transaction that serves foreign energy security while Guyanese taxpayers carry the risk and wait for the reward.

Congratulations, President Ali, on your new cover. Congratulations on your special invitation for the DR to ride on your taxpayers’ backs. And congratulations on proving that in the world of oil diplomacy, the most “visionary” deals are often the ones that give the most away for the least in return. 

How can We Guyanese get such a sweetheart deal for themselves ? 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

592 GUARDIAN♦ OPINION♦ GTOWN GUYANA♦ JUNE 2026

Spine Is Not a Slogan: Setting the Record Straight on Opposition Leadership

Dr.Rick Itwaru’s declaration that Guyana has finally found “an opposition with a spine” may resonate with those eager for confrontation, but it does not withstand serious scrutiny. The problem is not the desire for a stronger opposition—that is both valid and necessary. The problem is the reckless inflation of a political figure whose performance, to date, falls far short of the standard being claimed.

Spine is not noise. It is not posture. And it is certainly not selective defiance.

Spine, in the Guyanese political tradition, has a meaning forged under pressure—real pressure.

It was embodied by Dr. Cheddi Jagan, a man who did not merely speak against power but endured its full force. Jagan stood firm when it was dangerous to do so. He was not just opposed by a sitting government; he was undermined by coordinated international interference, including documented CIA involvement in destabilizing his administration. These are no longer speculative claims—they are part of the historical record.

Yet even under that weight, Jagan did not abandon the institutional ground. He did not retreat from the electorate that entrusted him with power. He held his party together, maintained organizational discipline, and continued to operate within the framework of democratic legitimacy. His convictions were not episodic—they were sustained. He wrote The West on Trial not as political theatre, but as a testament to ideological clarity and endurance. And ultimately, he returned to power not through spectacle, but through persistence and principle.

That is spine.

To now elevate Azruddin Mohamed into that lineage is not just premature—it is a distortion of political reality.

Eight months after being handed a democratic mandate, Mohamed has failed to ensure that his own party occupies its rightful seats in Region 10. This is not a minor oversight. It is a fundamental failure of leadership. Representation delayed is representation denied. Every day those seats remain unoccupied is a day the voters who supported him are effectively silenced.

Worse still, the vacuum has consequences. The previous Chair, Deron Adams, continues to occupy the space that voters explicitly chose to change. That is not resistance. That is surrender by default.

What exactly are we calling “spine” here?

If a leader cannot marshal his own organization to fulfill the most basic obligation—taking up seats already won—then the rhetoric of fighting the system rings hollow. Governance, even in opposition, demands structure, discipline, and follow-through. It requires more than public confrontation; it requires internal control and respect for the mandate given by the electorate.

Itwaru’s commentary conveniently sidesteps this reality. In doing so, it replaces analysis with advocacy. It constructs an image that does not align with the facts on the ground. And in elevating Mohamed beyond his demonstrated capacity, it does a disservice to the very standard of leadership it claims to defend.

Guyana does need a stronger opposition. It needs leaders who will challenge inequity, demand transparency in the management of oil wealth, and confront the excesses of entrenched power. But strength must be measured in outcomes, not intentions.

Cheddi Jagan’s legacy reminds us that real political courage is not situational. It is consistent. It does not falter at the first test of organization or responsibility. It does not leave supporters unrepresented while claiming to fight on their behalf.

Azruddin Mohamed may yet grow into a more effective political figure. That remains to be seen. But at this moment, the record is clear: he has not met the standard required to justify the praise being heaped upon him.

When he can secure his own political base, enforce internal cohesion, and ensure that the mandates given to him are fully executed—then, and only then, can a serious conversation begin about leadership worthy of national consequence.

Until that happens, talk of “spine” is not analysis. It is exaggeration.

And Guyana deserves better than that.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

 

592 GUARDIAN

I N D E P E N D E N T♦ A C C O U N T A B I L I T♦ Y J O U R N A L I S M ♦ G U Y A N A

V O L. 2 0 2 6 • E D I T O R I A L• J U N E 2 0 2 6

 5 9 2 G U A R D I A N. G Y

 D E M O C R A T I C– I N T E G R I T Y

S T A T E  R E S O U R C E S • L O C A L- G O V E R N M E N T

E L E C T I O N S • I N C U M B E N C Y A B U S E

Cabinet Outreaches, or Campaign Machinery in Disguise?

Across Guyana, a familiar political spectacle is unfolding — marketed as governance, engineered as campaigning. Citizens are being made to fund the electoral ambitions of a leadership they may never choose to vote for.

E D I T O R I A L B O A R D • 5 9 2 G U A R D I A N • J U N E 2 0 2 6

Call it what you will — “Cabinet outreach,” “community engagement,” “delivery of services.” Strip away the branding and what remains is blunt and familiar: the machinery of an incumbent government deploying public resources, state vehicles, ministerial authority, and taxpayer financed logistical infrastructure in the explicit service of its own electoral survival. With Local Government Elections on the horizon, these orchestrated spectacles are not a coincidence. They are a strategy — and Guyana’s citizens are footing the bill.

This is not a new accusation, nor is it an allegation without evidence. It is a pattern so well-documented by independent international observers that its repetition should constitute a national emergency for democratic governance. The question before the Guyanese public is no longer whether this is happening. The question is why it has been permitted to continue — and who benefits from the silence.

The Anatomy of an “Outreach”

Cabinet outreach programs, on their face, bear a legitimate description: ministers visiting communities, citizens raising concerns, government responding in real time. But the staging of these events — the ministerial motorcades, the government-branded tents, the state media camera crews, the distribution of benefits timed to crowd the pre-election calendar — reveals something altogether different from neutral public administration.

In May 2026, Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo led a widely publicized outreach at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre that drew hundreds of citizens with unresolved grievances — many of which had been pending for months, years, or in some cases, decades. The Kaieteur News observed that far from demonstrating governmental efficiency, these queues exposed the chronic failure of the very administrative systems the outreach purported to represent. A government that was governing electively would not need theatrical interventions to compensate for systemic dysfunction. What these events deliver instead is optics: the image of an accessible, responsive leadership — precisely the image that drives votes in a Local Government election.

“The flood of project launches, ribbon-cuttings, and welfare distributions during the campaign was not governance — it was blatant electioneering disguised as state business.”                                         S TA B R O E K N E W S  A N A LY S I S • S E P T E M B E R 2025      C I T I N G  E U  E L E C T O R A L- O B S E R V E R  M I S S I O N      F I N D I N G S

What International Observers Have Already Confirmed

This editorial does not rest on conjecture. It rests on the documented findings of independent international electoral missions — bodies whose mandates are accountability, not partisanship.

O N  T H E  R E C O R D: I N T E R N A T I O N A L  O B S E R V E R  F I N D I N G S    O N G U Y A N A

▸ European Union Election Observation Mission, Final Report (November 2025): Found that “the level playing field was distorted by an undue advantage of incumbency, misuse of state resources, and under-regulated, weakly enforced campaign finance rules.” The EU EOM specifically noted that state resources were directly used in 29 percent of observed PPP/C campaign events — including five documented cases of state-owned vehicles transporting voters.

▸ EU EOM Preliminary Statement (September 2025):

Confirmed that President Ali’s administration “inaugurated a high number of public projects — hospitals, schools, roads, and bridges — and launched several social support programs combining these events with campaign activities.” State media and government social media accounts were simultaneously used to amplify party campaign messages, “further blurring the line.”

▸ EU EOM on campaign finance (September 2025): “There is no state funding in Guyana, and no provisions defining permissible sources and uses of funding, donations, or campaign expenditures. There are no regulations to ensure a level playing field for campaigning, nor adequate rules to minimize the use of state resources to the advantage of incumbency.”

▸ CARICOM Election Observer Mission Chief Josephine Tamai (September 2025): Recommended that regional model legislation be enacted to prohibit incumbent governments from using state resources for campaigning, with a legal “cut-o! point” once an election is called. Her mission was informed of state resource abuse during Guyana’s 2025 general elections and committed to addressing this in its final report.

▸ EU EOM (November 2025): Also documented “instances of direct pressure on civil servants and part-time government employees, including demotions and transfers linked to perceived support for opposition candidates” — and noted that voters in some communities reportedly refrained from openly supporting opposition parties due to fear of losing employment or social benefits.

These are not fringe allegations. These findings come from organizations operating under internationally recognized standards of election observation. They were independently verified, field-observed, and formally transmitted to Guyana’s election authorities with eighteen concrete recommendations. The government has had no shortage of opportunity to reform its conduct. The continuation of Cabinet outreaches in the pre-Local Government election period is not ignorance of these findings — it is indifference to them.

The Mechanics of Incumbency Abuse

Understanding the mechanism is essential. Incumbency abuse in the electoral context does not require a government to hand out cash in a polling station. It operates through a more sophisticated architecture — one that exploits the structural advantages of power itself.

---

G O V E R N A N C E V S. E L E C T I O N E E R I N G :                 T H E  C R I T I C A L  D I S T I N C T I O N

ACTIVITY		LEGITIMATE GOVERNANCE		ELECTIONEERING IN DISGUISE
Project commissioning		GOV Scheduled, announced through	procurement processes, implemented by agencies	PARTY Ribbon-cuttings timed to electoral calendar; ministers personally present with media coverage
Community outreach		GOV Routine constituency offices and ministry helpdesks serving the public continuously		PARTY Mass theatrical events with VP/ministerial presence in swing communities ahead of polling
Cash transfers / benefits		GOV Administered through scheduled, established social protection programs		PARTY Announced or accelerated prior to elections; distributed at events featuring party officials
State vehicle usage		GOV official transport for government business within procurement rules		PARTY Documented transport of voters to campaign events — five	instances observed by EU EOM in 2025
State media coverage		GOV Balanced coverage of government and	opposition activities	PARTY EU EOM found pro-government bias; state social media used to amplify party campaign messages

The architecture is deliberate. It exploits a fundamental asymmetry: an opposition candidate cannot mobilize a ministerial motorcade, cannot issue a press release through the ministerial motorcade, cannot issue a press release through the Department of Public Information, cannot host an event at a state facility, cannot promise on-the-spot resolution of long pending government grievances — because the opposition does not hold the keys to the state. When a Cabinet minister conducts an outreach, they arrive not merely as a politician, but as an embodiment of state power itself. That embodiment is priceless as electoral currency, and it costs the PPP/C nothing beyond what the Treasury already provides.

“When citizens are made to fund the campaign of those who govern them — without their consent and without legal prohibition — democracy is not merely weakened. It is quietly strangled.”                          — 5 9 2  G UA R D I A N  E D I T O R I A L    B O A R D

Citizens Are Paying for Their Own Political        Manipulation

This is the heart of the matter, and it demands to be stated plainly. Every government vehicle that carries a minister to a pre-election community rally was purchased with public funds. Every state media crew that films a ribbon-cutting is paid from the public budget. Every DPI press release that frames a Cabinet outreach as benevolent governance is produced by public servants on public time. The logistical backbone by public servants on public time.

The logistical backbone of these “outreaches” — the tents, the sound systems, the security, the officials’ salaries — is financed by the taxpayers of Guyana, including those who have never voted PPP/C and never will.

There is no legal prohibition on this in Guyana. The EU EOM was unambiguous: there exist no regulations to ensure a level playing field, and no elective rules to minimize the misuse of state resources. That legal vacuum is not an accident. Governments do not legislate themselves out of advantages they are actively enjoying. The burden of demanding reform, therefore, falls not on the institution that benefits — but on the citizenry, civil society, and the international community that has now placed this failure formally on the record.

The Local Government Election Stakes

The timing of the current Cabinet outreach surge cannot be separated from the budgetary provision made for Local Government Elections in the 2026 National Budget. These elections contest all 1,220 council seats across Guyana’s 80 local authority areas — the granular level of governance closest to everyday life: NDCs, municipalities, the institutions that manage drainage, markets, road maintenance, and community infrastructure. They are also the level at which PPP/C control — and its absence — is most directly felt by ordinary Guyanese.

Georgetown, which has remained under APNU/PNCR control since independence in 1966, is a particular strategic target. since independence in 1966, is a particular strategic target. The pattern observed in the 2023 local elections — where the

PPP/C campaigned heavily in opposition strongholds — is repeating. Cabinet outreaches in communities historically resistant to the PPP/C serve as both a political foothold and a demonstration of state capacity that opposition-controlled councils cannot match. They are not service delivery. They are competitive displacement.

What Accountability Requires

International observer missions have delivered their findings. GECOM has received eighteen recommendations. The CARICOM observer chief has called for regional model legislation. None of it has produced reform. The question now is what mechanism can compel what neither conscience nor institutional recommendation has achieved.

What Must Happen Before Local Government Elections Are Held

1. LEGISLATIVE PROHIBITION Parliament must enact enforceable campaign finance legislation that expressly prohibits the use of state vehicles, state media, state employees, and public funds in any event that combines government service with electoral or party activity. The legal vacuum identified by the EU EOM is not a regulatory inconvenience — it is the engine of incumbency abuse. 2. INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF OUTREACH EXPENDITURE GECOM and the Auditor General’s Office must jointly audit the budgetary expenditure associated with Cabinet outreach programs conducted in the six months preceding the Local Government Elections date, with findings made public before polling day. 3. CARICOM PRE-ELECTION OBSERVATION Given the formally documented pattern of pre-election state resource abuse in the 2025 general elections, a CARICOM or OAS observer presence must be activated not merely on election day but during the campaigning period itself — with an explicit mandate to monitor Cabinet activities for electoral conduct violations. 4. CIVIL SERVANT PROTECTION LEGISLATION The EU EOM documented direct pressure on civil servants linked to perceived support for opposition candidates. Guyana requires statutory protection for public employees from political coercion, with enforceable penalties for ministerial interference in their employment. 5. STATE MEDIA SEPARATION The National Communications Network and the Department of Public Information must be placed under an independent editorial board with a legal mandate of political impartiality, removing their current function as instruments of ruling party amplification. 6. MORATORIUM ON RIBBON-CUTTING EVENTS In the ninety days preceding any electoral event, the commissioning of public infrastructure by sitting ministers must be prohibited as a campaign-adjacent activity. Project completions may be announced through press release only, without ministerial ceremony

The Closing Argument

 Vice President Jagdeo, speaking at the ACCC outreach in May 2026, said: “We’ve done the campaign, and now we have to deliver on what we promised our people.” The distinction he draws — between campaign and delivery — is precisely the one his government is systemically erasing. When campaign promises are fulfilled through state- branded ceremonies, with media coverage, in state facilities, on state time, the campaign never ends. It simply brings its uniform.

The Guyanese state belongs to every citizen — not to the party that temporarily occupies its executive. When the machinery of that state is redirected toward the perpetuation of a single party’s grip on power — without legal prohibition, without electoral oversight, and without public accountability — democracy is not merely weakened. It is quietly strangled by the very institution sworn to protect it.

Cabinet outreaches, as currently conducted, are not a public service. They are a public liability — to democratic integrity, to equal electoral competition, and to every Guyanese citizen who deserves a genuinely free and fair vote.

The 592 Guardian calls on GECOM, civil society, and Guyana’s regional and international partners to treat this not as a talking point, but as the constitutional crisis it has become.

◆ ◆ ◆

---

The 592 Guardian is an independent accountability publication. This editorial references findings from the European Union Election Observation Mission Final Report (November 2025), the CARICOM Election Observer Mission (September 2025), Kaieteur News, Stabroek News, and Demerara Waves reporting. No public official approached for comment prior to publication responded within the editorial deadline.

---

© 2 0 2 6  5 9 2 G U A R D I A N  •  I N D E P E N D E N T             A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y  J O U R N A L I S M  •                         G E O R G E T O W N , G U YA N A  •  5 9 2 G U A R D I A N .